Good news for airship fanciers this week, as it appears that the world's first rigid airship since the 1930s will soon take to the skies for flight trials: and better still, this ship has a new piece of technology which could actually change the existing landscape and permit the leviathans of the skies to return.
Rigid ships set …

Re: Back of the envelope calculation

Re: Back of the envelope calculation

A bicycle tire is typically pressurized to 110-125 psi, which is right in the 8 bar range. They don't kill or even maim anyone when they blow up. Perhaps the difference is because a car tire is thick and has nasty stuff like steel belts in it, while the inner tube in a bike tire is not much more than a balloon made out of something that doesn't stretch as well as a normal balloon. Car tires are not built for 100+ psi, they're built for 35 psi. I'm sure they could make them able to handle 200 psi if they was a point to doing so, but that would add unnecessary expense and make for a very rough ride!

Sounds like what COSH is doing is transferring helium from balloons (used during lift stage) to bicycle inner tubes (to reduce lift) With pressures in the 8 bar range I don't think we're going to need to worry about another Hindenburg because a few inner tubes give way inside a structure LINED WITH METAL. So long as they're durable enough such that one blowing up isn't going to cause the one next to it to blow up and start a giant chain reaction I think such fears are unfounded.

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

I was thinking that, if it was made plush enough it could be an alternative to a cruse ship, albeit one I would actually like to travel on*. Plenty of places an airship could go that a cruse ship can't.

*You could make the interior styling that of the 1930's, rather than plastic tat, and specify that the crew wear monocles and such. Give every passenger a pipe and smoking jacket on boarding, I say. What what?

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

"I would love to see commercial passenger travel using these, but alas, it will probably be an expensive boutique operation. Translation: I won't be able to afford it."

I suspect so. And I'd guess that the main cost problem will be the low productivity of the asset, caused by its slow speed. In the time this takes to get any reasonable distance, a conventional jet could have flow there and back twice including the turnarounds. Not only does that mean that the asset is less productive, but any crew will be similarly unproductive.

I'd love to see airships come back, but I can't see that they have any real advantages in any role other than perhaps high altitude unmanned surveillance (and the Yanks seem to have taken a good look and decided that's better done with conventional drones). Other slow endurance tasks (like maritime patrol) are probably ruled out by the need to fly in very poor weather at low altitude (and for military transport, it's too slow to be used other than outside of combat zones, which makes it a slow, inflexible, single purpose piece of kit. I don't see this supplanting C130s and A400M ever.

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

Their main advantage is extremely stable, extremely heavy lifting duties with no improved airstrip necessary.

Transporting equipment by helicopter sucks and is only done because there are no other options. Even purpose built heavy lifting helicopters like the Sky-Crane are highly unstable, have limited lift capacity (compared to an airship) and are very fuel inefficient. Helicopters also have significant load balancing challenges which put a big limitation on the shape of things that can be carried. Airships can compensate for uneven loads far, far better than a helicopter.

it will probably be an expensive boutique operation.

Traveling time would go up by a factor of 5, I guess. But space would not be an issue. You'd be able to walk around or sleep. England to Europe would be fine.

Fuel efficiency would be in its favor. If the top surface were solar cells, you could have a daylight only ship with minimal fuel costs.

The question is whether the cost of the ships will be low enough to make travel cheaper. (Crew costs will go up by most of the factor of 5) How long will they last compared to a jet? What are the maintenance costs?

Re: it will probably be an expensive boutique operation.

Nobody points out that cruise ships must fail due to the slow nature of the journey, because the point isn't the speed, but the journey itself.

Cruise ships seem to contain a vast amount of stuff* to keep the passengers amused between stops. This is easier for ships because they're very, very big. It also suggests that the journey itself is less alluring than you might think.

*Water slides, gourmet meals, lectures, adultery... you can probably tell I've never actually been on a cruise.

Re: it will probably be an expensive boutique operation.

Most current (water) cruse ships tend to be about where you are going to, and keep you entertained on route.

i.e. a couple of nights in location A, then sail across an empty sea to get to location B for another night or two etc.

River cruses tend to be different, as you have more to look at, and smaller boats with less on them.

Airship cruses are more likely to be over land, so plenty to look at during the day, and the routes would most likely be plotted to make sure the most interesting stuff was flown past/over on route to the really interesting places. So less need for things like Water slides etc.

Although I did just think, how cool would it be to have a roof top pool, especially if it had the horizon type pool edge!

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

"Traveling time would go up by a factor of 5, I guess. But space would not be an issue. You'd be able to walk around or sleep. England to Europe would be fine."

You must be American. I can already catch a train to Europe from the UK, on which I can walk around, and it runs at up to twice the speed of an airship. If I want to waste a few hours I could catch a ferry, and if I want to get there quick then jet is the answer.

Cost of the airship is quoted by the company as around $55m dollars for the 250 tonne lifter. That's around what the airlines pay for a 737 with a 20 tonne cargo capacity. Obviously if you want to carry 250 tonne loads to runway free locations, there's only one choice - but if you are carrying normal air cargo then the 737 (or more likely a cheaper second hand 757 refitted) beats it hands down because most people aren't transporting 250 tonnes at a pop, most people live near enough an airport, and most people don't want to wait for an extra day for their air mail or air cargo to be delivered.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

@ Ledswinger

I think your comparing with the wrong type of transport. I doubt that an airship would (or could as you state) compete with aircraft, for air freight as the service is different. Current air freight is usually about speed rather than cost.

I think they would be more likely to compete with ocean going freight, As they would be faster, and could pick up and deliver closer to the door. So no need to ship to/from a sea port first. Also as this is more of a bulk service, the 250 tonne would likely easily be filled.

This could become an intermediate freight option (for medium to long haul). At the moment you have high cost, but fast air freight, or low cost, but slow cargo ships. An airship would probably sit in-between the two.

Also if the source location (e.g factory) and target location (e.g. local distribution warehouse) had enough space for one of these to land. You could ship 250 tonnes direct, point-to-point. i.e. 250 tonnes of TVs direct from the manufactures in Asia, straight to the local distribution warehouse of a UK retailer.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Boothy

"I think they would be more likely to compete with ocean going freight, "

I doubt it. Do the maths on the latest (and biggest) container ships, and you'll find you're going to need a lot of airships to replace a single ship. If we "go large" with the Maersk Triple E ships under construction, they carry 18,000 TEU, with a probable cargo weight of 180,000 tonnes. That's 720 of these airships, with a highly skilled crew of at least four or more (unless you land for crew changes). Obviously the airships travel at five times the speed of a ship on routes potentially half as long, but the Maersk Triple E has a crew of only 22. You point out that this would only be for intermediate loads, but where are they?

The reason many goods travel by sea is because the product cycles aren't fast enough nor the value high enough to permit air travel. And airships won't be materially cheaper. The challenge to sea borne containers is actually proposals to revamp the rail links across Asia, which exist but are slow and unreliable - but there's no will to do that, even though the time savings would be as great as your airship proposal, and the costs a lot lower. I doubt there's much mid merit cargo desperate for airship speeds - and in fact, if that's a problem, you move production closer to demand, rather than saving money moving where labour's free, and then paying loads to transport it back.

You posit point to point travel, but that's not going to happen for routine loads. Look at air traffic management systems, look at the volume of traffic carried by road - can you really see airships landing at you local Curry's? I can't.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

An application where existing technology is expensive and difficult, is lifting the largest and highest wind turbines on top of towers for offshore wind generation. Putting the towers up and nacelle units on top is relatively easy, it's the turbine blades which are so large and capable of generating dangerous and destructive forces in tiny windspeeds during installation. Offshore wind generators tend to be much larger than onshore ones. The ship-based cranes currently used for this purpose can only work on very calm days, and if an airship could do this job more quickly or safely in even very slight wind this would increase the time window during which this work could be carried out.

Re: Rigid Airships have a place@ Don Jefe

"Transporting equipment by helicopter sucks and is only done because there are no other options."

Actually, its not done much at all except by the military, and the military do it because it is fast, doesn't require any landing strip, and when it does land it can do so on a pocket handkerchief, a small deck area, or a bit of road. And they aren't carrying 250 tonnes, they're carrying a few troops, or a few tonnes of cargo. Being able to despatch three main battle tanks via airship doesn't get you much benefit in Iraq or Afghan.

Airships with large capacity will be slow, they will require very large cleared areas for landing, and I'm not convinced that they will be much more stable than a chopper when the airship has a cross sectional area not far off the sail area of the Cutty Sark. Think about 250 tonne point to point loads, and as I see it there simply isn't the volume of traffic in the civil sector - how many nuclear power station reactors or the like are there to transport?

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

@ Ledswinger

Europe is a geographical location, it's not like there is an option regarding being in it or not. Don't want to be in Europe, then you'll have to physically leave the continent. Not much chance of getting England to do that (v large tug boat required).

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

"I would love to see commercial passenger travel using these, but alas, it will probably be an expensive boutique operation. Translation: I won't be able to afford it."

I suspect so. And I'd guess that the main cost problem will be the low productivity of the asset, caused by its slow speed.

Hmm.. How about turning this into an asset? Perhaps setting up one of these creatures in the same fashion as a cruise ship would work. On the plus side, ports of call could be inland. On the minus: "Man overboard!" would be a bit more serious.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

I love the idea of airship cruises. I don't see why they'd have to be a niche market though.

The main disadvantage of a cruise on a traditional ship is that you're limitied to destinations on the coast or at the ends of rivers where they're still wide and deep enough to accommodate large hulls. Airships aren't restricted in such ways.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

I never thought of that problem. It seems like an interesting solution would be "flying bogies". One might be able to attach drone fans or (eg: quadcopters or similar) at certain places along the length of the blade to help maintain station and orientation while the crane (or skyhook) actually bears the weight.

Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Boothy

Ocean freight also has the huge advantage of being shipped inside its own rent and tariff free warehouse. Planes, trains and trucks generally have their profit built into transporting the cargo quickly then (ideally) making the return journey with new freight.

Ships on the other hand are often parked offshore, sometimes for months with just a skeleton crew. It is cheaper than paying the insanely artificial rates at on shore commodities warehouses or port side storage fees with all the longshoreman 'value added' charges and it frees space at the port it came from. Everybody is happy. If it can return loaded that's just a bonus, but the 'medium' size vessels that carry the majority of freight turn a profit on a one way trip.

You could never scale a similar scenario with airships. The costs of them sitting unused are simply too great and I don't think any nation would be comfortable with a fleet of airships hovering constantly just inside International Waters :)

The unknown component in this entire discussion is maintenance. There are no reliable projections or estimates on what a modern airship will cost to keep flying over a long period. Ships last a long, long, long time, spare parts are readily available, maintenance has very low levels of precision and they retain significant value even after removal from service as salvage, floating warehouses, and strategic blocking of shipping lanes, ports and coastlines in an invasion. In a worst case scenario you can still stick large guns or missile batteries on them too. Can't really do any of that with an airship.

Re: Rigid Airships have a place@ Don Jefe - Helicopter Delivery

Helicopters are used for moving heavy or large things more than you might think. In the last five years we've been the engineering leads on three jobs where large equipment was flown in. All three were at a sprawling factory that was receiving new equipment from overseas that couldn't fit through the facilities and their positioning wasn't optional as they performed inline processes that couldn't be rerouted without building an entirely new factory.

The equipment was sent by barge to the edge of the facility then lifted into their new homes in large sections. It was nerve wracking to say the least as well as extremely complicated. We had to cut big sections of roof off, build six electrically isolated guy towers and clean. The cleaning alone took over a week as the downdraft from the rotors, trapped in a big metal box (the factory) would turn anything loose into a ricocheting projectile with an unlimited power supply (as long as the helicopter was there anyway).

Sorry, neat (to me) but boring story over. My point was that we had to schedule the delivery of the components nine months in advance. The company that provides the lift service is that backed up. There are several in the US that do it but these guys had the helicopter we needed. It is a niche industry, but they are always busy. It is also very expensive, huge liabilities are involved and it is very complicated. If airships existed for the work they would be cheaper, less dangerous, and could completely alter the manufacturing landscape as many, many decisions are made based solely on getting equipment into a facility.

@ac Re: it will probably be an expensive @ Jess

Re: Rigid Airships have a place

Once we have even just a few of these forging an established place in aeronautics Phase 2 can be implemented: Die Überluftschiffe or megadirigibles.

Huge airships that are small cruising cities and do not normally attempt to land. Passenger boarding and resupply by small aircraft or airships that come up to meet it. I can see it now. Time for some Kickstarter trawling.